14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/26

(Case T-157/17)

(2017/C 269/38)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: Ostvesta SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Davidovičs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul Mission Report THOR (2013) 11413-07/05/2013 of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), together with its 15 annexes, Final Report OF/2010/0827/B1, Report No OF/2010/0827 and Report THOR (2011) 27463, in view of the serious illegalities vitiating those acts and the recommended measures adopted on the basis of those acts;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are binding on the State tax authorities and courts and have direct legal effects that harm the interests and the personal and actual rights of the applicant, altering its legal position, and are therefore challengeable acts, taking into consideration:

—the nature of customs duties as ‘EU own resources’ and the consequential obligations for Member States, which must collect those duties;

—the nature of OLAF as the administrative investigating body that replaces the Commission in external investigations;

—the role of the European Commission, as the institution with an enforcement function in relation to the application of the European Union’s Customs Code.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful and are vitiated by irregularities, because:

—they do not contain any of the essential information envisaged in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013; that is to say, they lack information relating to the procedural guarantees in the investigation, to the persons involved in the investigation, to the hearing of the applicant’s legal representatives, or to the preliminary legal qualification;

—they reject the responsibility of the competent authorities in an unreasoned and contradictory manner;

—OLAF failed to fulfil its duty to conduct the investigation objectively and impartially and in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence;

—incorrect information is included in the Final Report because of the lack of a preliminary investigation or because of omissions in the preliminary investigation;

—the Community legislation in the field of anti-dumping duties was infringed and misapplied;

—the Community legislation and the legislation of the Republic of Taiwan concerning the obligation imposed on the Bureau of Foreign Trade of Taiwan to verify the origin of the goods which it certifies were infringed and misapplied;

—Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code was infringed and misapplied;

—the Treaties and the legal rules relating to their application, as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, specifically Article 41 thereof, were infringed.